tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post1825687802214561485..comments2019-02-22T04:20:26.251-08:00Comments on EU Law Analysis: The Refugee Crisis: What should the EU do next? Steve Peershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-20829712524824758632017-05-05T09:47:40.669-07:002017-05-05T09:47:40.669-07:00Denmark has an opt-out from EU asylum law, so you ...Denmark has an opt-out from EU asylum law, so you should calm down your hysteria about Palestinians coming and eating your babies. Steve Peershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-76331705795079120882017-05-05T09:47:21.317-07:002017-05-05T09:47:21.317-07:00The numbers involved (and the commensurate costs) ...The numbers involved (and the commensurate costs) are vastly higher for Europe than Australia. Steve Peershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-58777140930127441842017-05-05T04:34:11.807-07:002017-05-05T04:34:11.807-07:00Well, you are not considering the facts about the ...Well, you are not considering the facts about the Palaestinian refugees from Israil: They migrated or fled to Jordan and when they had reached about 15% of the population in Jordan, they started civil war to gain control over &quot;their&quot; areas. Then, they were thrown out and were again welcomed into a christian society; the arabs Paris by then; Lebanon. As they reached about 10-15% of the total population, they started civil war again. Living in the one northern European country that has welcomed the highest number of Palaestinian migrants/refugees, I am just wondering about how it will affect the cohesion of the Danish nation; will I still be living in a secular, free nation, where only the legislation passed by politicians elected by the people, will rule my nation? Will we have peace and tranquility 30 years from now in the old kingdom of Denmark or will it be a warzone between tyrannic, power-, money- and influence-loving clerics and people hanging on to individual freedom and Danish nationality?Peter Thestruphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17560652595855049852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-50393882985894704102016-10-09T13:05:08.075-07:002016-10-09T13:05:08.075-07:00Very interesting and educating, but of course arti...Very interesting and educating, but of course articles such as these don&#39;t deal with the long-term implications of the population explosion and political and civilizational failures, in which civil war just like famine and epidemics is just an inevitable corrective force to the assault against the scarcity of nature&#39;s resources. The whole asylum system and especially the non-refoulement principle needs to be narrowly interpreted, and since the Strasbourg Court is not inclined to do so, the ECHR needs to be rewritten so as to accomodate something like the Australian approach. This was already written in a book by German social democrat Martin Neuffert in 1982, titled &quot;Die Erde wächst nicht mit&quot; (The earth doesn&#39;t grow along) and has been observed by many others since, leading also to the German asylum law reform of 1993 which led to the Dublin system. But it was a compromise that just hoped to dodge the question by extending it to the European frontline state. There basically seem to be two political directions for moving further: that of extending Dublin even further out of Europe, possibly with refugee camps sponsored by Europe outside Europe, as Australia is trying to do. Or that of rolling back the Dublin system and moving to a pan-European asylum system along the model that Germany had in 1993 and found to dangerous in view of the world situation, already back then. I&#39;d very interested to read about possible paths of reform especially for the former approach. Hartmut Pilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08831405108359969290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-90155898044773747222016-04-07T03:37:34.295-07:002016-04-07T03:37:34.295-07:00Thanks!Thanks!Steve Peershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-27890732323486025252016-04-07T03:28:48.944-07:002016-04-07T03:28:48.944-07:00Great article professor. Well written and captures...Great article professor. Well written and captures all the nuances of international law. Ujjwal Nathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14306677278733269909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-17346297775414950732015-11-11T12:13:06.942-08:002015-11-11T12:13:06.942-08:00Well, none of those things have happened in the de...Well, none of those things have happened in the developing countries that currently host the vast majority of the world&#39;s refugees (or at least, such problems, where they do exist, are rarely if ever triggered simply by hosting refugees). As for a mass influx of people from Brazil, Brazilians can enter the EU visa-free but very few seek refugee status and the statistics don&#39;t show many Brazilians staying without authorization.Steve Peershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-55583459962026648922015-11-07T15:52:19.029-08:002015-11-07T15:52:19.029-08:00This migration will be the end of the European Uni...This migration will be the end of the European Union, civil war in several countries and an economic crisis without precedentes in the history of the Western world how many activists of the Islamic state can come to Europe disguised as refugees? Europe can welcome all our guests who are hungry or who want to live better in the world? if the answer is yes I also want a better life and all other 205 050 500 million which has in Brazil would be excellent you in acolhedores for all of us too we can have a decent life, unfortunately this would impossíve, l then take care their European citizens countries before it is too late and esteje war in your country in your town in your neighborhood in your home, most European countries have always been my dream to live in peace and boua financial condition, I am descended Europeans have to live in a rubbish country Brazil that just is not corrupt because it is not possible laws that benefit corrupt police thugs who when not kill an innocent citizen can not fight crime, adolescents (persons between 01 e18 years) that kill or commit any other crime and can not be arrested because the state considers them as innocent, is chaos a living hell.<br />I work six months of the year just to pay taxes and see a German tourist a rider had a fall from a horse died when he was a typical common service in a Brazilian hospital she would be alive if he were in Germany, it is very common here not rebel, we have become used to this, happens every day several times a day, every year here in Brazil with the Brazilian citizen.<br />The German citizen wins in three days I earn in a month, and I have to give thanks to God I have a job, fight for their European citizens countries fight for their freedom by their boua financial condition by their customs for its tradition by his race by his family and Europe before it&#39;s too late to do anything.<br />Or you can sit idly by and see how it goes, good luck.<br />Forgive my English if there are any errors of grammar I do not speak English and used the google translator, &#39;m fruit of education and unfortunate financial situation in my country.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-23853663008714532792015-09-21T04:16:48.497-07:002015-09-21T04:16:48.497-07:00Well, successive Polish governments are and have b...Well, successive Polish governments are and have been strongly in support of free movement of persons within the EU. You are free to have a different view of course, but I am talking about the government&#39;s position. <br /><br />In the last few paragraphs I suggest in detail how there should be much more financial assistance from the EU (and others) to refugees in States neighbouring Syria. I entirely agree that this is money well spent - it helps a greater number of people and should reduce &#39;push&#39; factors that lead to them risking their lives in travel and handing over money to smugglers. <br /><br />Many of the countries that Poles fled to or migrated to did not traditionally have a Polish community either. But I would agree with the flexibility in the Commission proposal to allow countries to make a financial contribution instead of relocating people there; actually I think the conditions should be more flexible on this. Steve Peershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-31659370215393047752015-09-21T03:02:38.336-07:002015-09-21T03:02:38.336-07:00I do not think that &quot;newer member states bene...I do not think that &quot;newer member states benefitted from imigration&quot;. On the contrary, the huge imigration from Poland is exacerbating our already very difficult demographic situation, with thousands of young and educated people leaving the country (after their education being financed by Polish state). Personally I would be happy if UK would decide suddenly to deport all the Polish migrants.<br /><br />As you know, we already accepted 150 christian Syrian families, and &quot;many&quot; of them (exact number is not given by the press) already escaped for Germany despite being provided finances larger than many Polish families. Forcing refugees to be relocated to Poland against their wishes does not seem moral; if refugees don&#39;t want to stay in Turkey and this is the reason why they are still refugees with right to enter the EU, why now you want to ignore their wish to avoid Poland?<br />Moreover, is it moral to provide the refugees the financial help on such a scale, when in Poland with have literally hundreds of thousands of people living below the poverty line? Finally, for the same money more people could be helped in Turkey, Jordania or Lebanon; is it moral to waste those money instead of making the most efficient use of them? <br /><br />Moreover, our state is not multiethnic or multi-cultural and, quite frankly, we are quite happy about this. The fact that Germany is driving the decision to force the decision on us to have the same model of the state as Germany or France, with all its vices and advantages, violates the very principles of democracy and is morally untenable (especially as the crisis was definetely made worse by German decisions, and now they want to force the outcomes on us) - this awakens all the worse demons from the past and confirms all the worse fears of eurosceptics.szopenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02234132446740838968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-2768461536939076132015-09-18T16:31:50.927-07:002015-09-18T16:31:50.927-07:00Thank you, professor, for this thoughtful analysis...Thank you, professor, for this thoughtful analysis. Both as a lawyer specialising elsewhere and as a citizen concerned by the current crisis, I am very well served by it.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07468224928229937604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-61082356037452766502015-09-16T03:42:41.701-07:002015-09-16T03:42:41.701-07:00Last but not least, Dublin is based on an internal...Last but not least, Dublin is based on an internal use of the STC concept. Yet, the EU’s use of the STC demonstrated to be weak already in its external dimension, and now this problem is being reflected to the internal dimension. The predictability of any criteria of allocation or system, whether Dublin or any other, is directly proportional to the effectiveness of the measures put in place to offer protection. In fact, without effective protection not only rational distribution is not possible, but as the European Courts evidenced, it neither lawful and in point of fact in the end does not allow for a rational approach to distribution but instead allows even for the free choice of country of asylum. So this answers the question ‘why’ ‘the policies of the Union shall be governed by the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility’ according to Art. 80 TFEU. And the answer is simply that this is in States interest. A system that does not promote solidarity among EU member States is against State interests, but also against the possibility to have a sustainable way of offering protection without compromising the safety of refugee.<br /><br />If, for instance, the STC formal identification of the host country was in parallel with the internal substitutive examination under the Dublin rules, the responsibility would be allocated to the country, whether internal or external to the EU, with whom the refugee has the strongest connection. In this case, it could be both an internal or external country. All would depend from the strongest connection, or eventually an internal to the EU in absence of connection externally, but only in case there is a reasonable preference if compared to external preferences. Such reinforcement of the connection criteria and parallel examination would be in accordance with the international rules and end up both the presumption that once a refugee reaches the EU can remain there even without meaningful connection or reasonable preference, but also the assumption that that the country of first asylum or safe third country should be ordinarily looked to as the sources of enduring protection. It would be a fairer and more efficient system of allocation of responsibilities within the EU but also with other countries.<br /><br />What this means in practice? The internal and external dimensions are inter-related and inter-dependent. An EU CEAS cannot exist without an CEAS’s external dimension.<br /><br />The issue is that the use of STC concept is quite tricky, as you also mention in your piece ‘Safe countries of origin’: Assessing the new proposal”.<br />Paolo Biondinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-40505907085749978062015-09-16T03:42:17.016-07:002015-09-16T03:42:17.016-07:00In view of your experience and analysis on EU legi...In view of your experience and analysis on EU legislation, it seems almost pointless to remind that the Dublin is so hard to apply in practice because his rules are not implemented consistently and coherently. With this I do not mean to say that it is perfect. The main problem about its rules is that they do not take to a greater extent the relation between effective protection and substantial connection and reasonable preferences, as argued above. But also because it cannot address some of EU member States structural pull factors, and thus the criteria are not enough flexible to address ad-hoc emergencies and the singularities of some EU MS, as those external to the EU. <br /><br />In fact, while the the EU harmonisation and strong integration process levels the level of protection to minimum or common standards, which as such can promote a better responsibility-sharing, it is not accompanied by other measures, and this as an effect curtail the EU’s countries capacity to react to their asymmetries with the right instruments required by their specific cases. Differences in States needs that are not addressed properly by the Dublin implementation but mostly by the CEAS, curtails the possibility for specialization. Harmonisation and homogeneous and effective standards of protection along the EU is not enough alone. A stronger allocation criteria that takes into account the structural pull factors, as a stronger meaningful connection and reasonable preference, would make the effective protection reached partially with harmonisation even stronger. At the same time there is need of a toolbox of other measures which can be used to address in a preventive and reactive way the asymmetries of some countries.<br /><br />So, while the Dublin contains already the connection criteria (family unity), it must be reinforced and at the same time better implemented in practice with other complementary measures. Therefore, since the choice of the country of asylum does not depend only on the effectiveness of protection offered, it is also important to take into account the presence of links. So, the focus on harmonisation must be accompanied by criteria of allocation able to take into account of some of the structural pull factors as meaningful connection and reasonable preference, but it must be also accompanied by other measures able to address the other geographic and structural pull factors. <br />Paolo Biondinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-84109998681971097092015-09-16T03:41:50.111-07:002015-09-16T03:41:50.111-07:00Thanks Steve.
I came across a number of articles ...Thanks Steve.<br /><br />I came across a number of articles about asylum destinations. The main criteria considered are indeed those that you mention as well. Recognition rates, reception conditions, family links and structural pull factors. Among the latters we can talk about geographic proximity, legislative pull factors (especially in relation to other countries).<br /><br />Recognition rates are important as much as the reception conditions. Yet, much more importance seems to be given by refugees to family links or presence of an already established diaspora. The latter criteria are balanced with the reception conditions, or in other words, if effective protection from a legal and practical perspective.<br /><br />Recognition rates can be improved with the harmonization of law and the use of best practices. This to a great extent is already happening. The same is valid for the reception conditions. But I personally think that recognition rates and reception conditions cannot be detached from family links and other criteria as presence of diaspora, language, and other ‘reasonable preferences’. The presence of family links is strongly related to the concept of effective protection. A refugee is more likely to be self-empowered in the short or long-term, if he can be supported by relatives or has other connection with the country. The same is valid for other reasonable preferences. Therefore, reception conditions can do better without further allocation of nation al resources, for instance, if the legislation is stronger when it comes to a more extensive use of substantial connection and reasonable preferences. Dublin is quite weak on this point.<br /><br />Family links (substantial connection) and reasonable preferences can be easily enforced in law, as there are already international provisions in this sense. This is not only in the best interest of refugees but also, and in particular, of States. There is no need of substantial changes in the International Refugee Law or EU law to achieve this aim. The already existing rules and principles must be just implemented more coherently, both in the international and EU framework.<br />Paolo Biondinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-9484491321684492042015-09-15T06:12:41.515-07:002015-09-15T06:12:41.515-07:00Thanks, Cristina. Please do feel free to translate...Thanks, Cristina. Please do feel free to translate and link. Steve Peershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-77397670557344148282015-09-15T05:36:50.443-07:002015-09-15T05:36:50.443-07:00Steve: Bravo! Me I translate your post into Spanis...Steve: Bravo! Me I translate your post into Spanish and link it (original plus translation) to our web site (Institute for International Migrations, Comillas University, Madrid)?Cristina Gortázarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02072901092451509919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-65828677893239868842015-09-14T03:09:50.262-07:002015-09-14T03:09:50.262-07:00Thanks, Paolo. I think more needs to be done to se...Thanks, Paolo. I think more needs to be done to see why asylum-seekers try to go to particular countries, in order to address the reasons why Dublin is so hard to apply in practice. How much of that is down to differences in recognition rates and reception conditions? Those could be addressed by changes in the content and enforcement of EU law - but other reasons (desire to be with extended family and others of the same ethnic group) could not. Steve Peershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-61631927329091736942015-09-14T03:01:08.950-07:002015-09-14T03:01:08.950-07:00I do agree with you. Scrapping the Regulation woul...I do agree with you. Scrapping the Regulation would make little sense, especially in consideration of the amount of time it took to get here. In this regard in my research I am trying to look at the Regulation in the context of the International Refugee Law rules and principles on refugee distribution (Art 31, ExCom 15 1979, ExCom 58 1989). From my assessment so far it looks like the Regulation is largely in line with such rules and principles, and in some parts it is even more progressive. I personally think it just needs a better implementation and the new instruments under Art 33 and EASO Regulation could be of great relevance in this sense. <br /><br />I agree again with you on the relocation systems. They can give a great contribution to a better distribution, but they could never be considered a preventive and predictable mechanism in my opinion. They are emergency mechanisms that rely on the assumption that a given number of protection seekers, already present in the EU, must be more fairly allocated. If we think in this perspective, then we could also consider a quota system as well. But as the history of the EU negotiation in this sense teach us, they are unlikely to be accepted and way too complicated to be negotiated.<br /><br />The EU system needs from time to time a relocation scheme, but only because it does not have yet a very coherent on-going mechanism which allocates people more fairly in relation to both the EU internal and external dimension. I think the way forward is to look at the EU internal mechanism in the context of the larger picture. In this sense, the Dublin can already be considered a relocation scheme. Plus, the use of the STC in relation to Dublin works as a quota system between the internal and external dimension. The rules of STC in relation to Dublin must be just adjusted in order not to put too much pressure on the third countries. So I do really think we need to insist working on a better implementation of the current framework, both internal and external, rather than look for a brand new formula that solves all the problems at the flick of a finger.<br />Paolo Biondinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-15757355880152484762015-09-13T10:45:24.007-07:002015-09-13T10:45:24.007-07:00Hi Paolo
Thanks for your comments. I am looking ...Hi Paolo <br /><br />Thanks for your comments. I am looking at the changes to the Dublin system on relocation for a thinktank, so I will be writing about that soon. As for the existence of Dublin my concern about scrapping it entirely is that there would be an undue burden placed on rather different Member States - which has quickly proved to be the case re Germany&#39;s waiver. It is better to try to come up with a relocation system like the Commission&#39;s proposals to deal with the current large burdens more evenly. Steve Peershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-12923435571567939302015-09-10T11:26:55.243-07:002015-09-10T11:26:55.243-07:00As I said, refugees should comply with the law. If...As I said, refugees should comply with the law. If they break it though, they can only be excluded from refugee status in accordance with Article 1.F of the Geneva Convention for war crimes, terrorism et al in the country of origin. They can be refouled for very serious grounds under Article 33.2 of the Convention, but Article 3 ECHR will rule that out. Other penalties could be imposed for breaking the law in the host country though (other than the immigration law, as discussed above).Steve Peershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-63817273364042175352015-09-10T03:57:38.352-07:002015-09-10T03:57:38.352-07:00Refugees have an obligation to comply with the law...Refugees have an obligation to comply with the law. Article 2 of the 1951 Convention is clear:<br /><br />Every refugee has duties to the country in which he finds himself, which<br />require in particular that he conform to its laws and regulations as well as to measures taken for the maintenance of public order.Paul Wessonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13430024253008732137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-12853834764659036702015-09-09T09:29:09.295-07:002015-09-09T09:29:09.295-07:00Dear Prof. Peers,
Thank you so much for this, eve...Dear Prof. Peers,<br /><br />Thank you so much for this, even if short, very comprehensive article.<br />As an early academic and a follower of yours, I do admire your capacity to be always so original and thoughtful. <br /><br />In this regard i find very innovative a particular position of yours in this article. When you address the question of whether the Dublin Regulation should survive. I am personally very much surprised when other academics tend to agree that the Regulation must be completely reformed and I instead agree with you that it all depends from what will be done next. <br /><br />In time since it was a still a Convention, the Regulation has been always amended and upgraded to the new realities. Sometimes slowlier and sometimes in a more reactive way. The same could be said for the 1951 Convention. It was not created as a perfect instrument and it did reflect the interests of a certain part of States. Yet in time it became better and better, even if it still not perfect.<br /><br />As I am a Ph.D candidate writing on the Dublin Regulation Recast, I was wondering whether you have any ideas or comments on the role the EASO agency could play in the reformed Dublin Regulation. In particular when it comes to Art. 33 and how this could be linked to Art. 78(3) and 80 of the TFEU. <br /><br />I personally think that the Support Agency has a big role to play and that the new &#39;EASO toolbox&#39; must be very much still to be uncovered. <br /><br />Thank you in advance for your attentionPaolo Biondihttps://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=AAIAAAbR3IoB1Zn6TYTkm_prR3QGDbyP2RyKRrA&trk=nav_responsive_tab_profilenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-23723960505314635412015-09-09T01:30:26.206-07:002015-09-09T01:30:26.206-07:00Hi Robert,
Thanks for your comments.
1) I doub...Hi Robert, <br /><br />Thanks for your comments. <br /><br />1) I doubt that the German waiver of Dublin will last forever, The proposal is not to relocate people from Germany, but from 3 frontline states. If that goes ahead I think it is unlikely that Germany will keep its Dublin waiver. <br /><br />2) This is why the relocation process should try to take account of refugee preferences as far as possible, and why the proposal will allow a financial contribution as an alternative to relocation. <br /><br />3) There is also plenty of footage of refugees taking food from members of the public. They must have eaten and drunk something. In some cases refugees have been attacked or misled, and in general I can see why they distrust governments. I agree that refugees should comply with the law, but if certain governments behaved better, they would have more moral authority making this point. Steve Peershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05869161329197244113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8704899696538705849.post-59237672027982370842015-09-09T00:49:31.309-07:002015-09-09T00:49:31.309-07:00Steve many thanks for a thoughtful and detailed an...Steve many thanks for a thoughtful and detailed analysis. I agree with your position on a legal framework but it seems you underestimate the political aspects of the issue. Just a couple of examples:<br /><br />1) The position of Germany: They basically promised to grant asylum to any Syrians that arrive, but at the same time insist other states had to participate in sharing. I find this inconsistent- if I invite somebody to my house (which BTW further fuels the influx), it is fair to lodge her with a neighbour?<br /><br />2) What the refugees want: It is very much clear that some states are preferred by refugees to others. Nobody wants to stay in the Czech Rep. or Hungary, so how can you force the people to stay? We (Czechs) could easily promise to take 300 thousand refugees, because if we do not lock them up, they would be in Germany in a week- of course everything according to the EU law rules.<br /><br />3) The attitude of immigrants: There are numerous reports from the Western Balkans route (even by the serious media outlets) informing that the refugees are not willing to follow any rules, they just feel they have a right to get to Germany. They refuse to have their fingerprints taken, refuse to be taken to custody for identification, refuse food due to its &quot;bad quality&quot; etc. I am the last to support Orban&#39;s govt but when I see people that are safely from war to forcingly disrupt life of the whole country (walking highways, no trains between Prague and Budapest nowadays etc.), I am wondering where this will end...<br /><br />I know, not exactly lege artis argumentation, but at this point we must accept that we are already well beyond following any Dublin daydreaming (from all sides).Robert Zbíralhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08777173872754120012noreply@blogger.com